In all that verbal diarrhea you failed to answer a simple questionThe Supreme Court has already ruled that as unconstitutional. Equal protection of our lawsGovernment is in the marriage business...Dear rightwinger I'm saying to keep it out of govt if you want free choice.
Keep the language secular where everyone agrees to it.
I've found more common agreement to keep Civil Unions in govt
and manage contracts that way and NOT specify any conditions on
the social relationships between the partners who form a legal contract or domestic partnership.
If brother and sister, or two neighbors want to run a household together and share contractual
duties or legal guardianship, that has ZERO to do with if they are having romantic relations
much less if they have to be husband and wife.
And if people don't agree on benefits policies, those are social values also,
that can be separated by party if people cannot agree on state or federal laws for all people in that state or across the nation.
Not to worry rightwinger I already gave up trying to explain it.
I am happy enough to find the other people who get it,
and maybe that's enough to separate our beliefs from govt
and leave everyone else who believe in dominating one political belief "for all people"
every time majority rule decides an election. I don't believe in that,
but if you and others do, I cannot change your minds for you.
All I can do is sue or petition to separate my taxes and my representation
from people like you who believe in violating each other's by majority rule
and claim that gives you license to impose your beliefs, political or otherwise,
onto others who don't agree. and call them delusional, just like people
say that about liberals and try to censor them for it.
I believe this impositional bullying is a DANGER to the very liberal progressive
ideals I believe in regarding free choice, and protecting beliefs and creeds from
discrimination, exclusion, coercion, bullying, imposition, penalty, and deprivation of equal protection rights and liberties.
I understand you and others believe in protecting rights by establishing them through govt,
but I believe this still requires consensus where political beliefs differ.
I don't believe in forcing or imposing them without consent, or it's not
valid authority of law if not all people consent to that policy. I believe
in matters of belief, all objections and conflicts should be resolved to
ensure equal representation and protection of interests, regardless of creed.
But my standards are higher than even very intelligent articulate people like
you and Faun can handle.
so it's not fair to expect you to understand this and change your minds
if you are set on seeing opponents with other beliefs as "delusional."
That's why opponents of liberal beliefs say the same thing, give up
and just resort to voting liberals out of office.
You are danger to your own party principles and you don't even see it.
Where's the inclusion, the free choice.
Both sides have resorted to painting the other as delusional,
and that's where I have to leave you to your own devices if that's the best I can expect from you.
Thanks for your best efforts!
Just know that people say the same thing and think
liberals are "mentally ill" or "deluded" in depending on govt for rights when to them
that is a false and dangerous premise.
Or they want "everyone else" to pay for their programs
so when I advocate to separate tracks so taxpayers have a choice,
they say "liberals will never support that because they want OTHER people
to pay for their programs".
That makes no sense to me. If I and other Democrats believe in sustainable
health care, we should be able to fund it ourselves. And if it's not affordable,
something is wrong with the terms and conditions, and we'd have to change
them such as requiring all people get help for criminal illness abuse or addiction
if that's what driving costs up that could otherwise pay for health care.
I hope it's finally time to separate social programs and funding by party,
Because I'm sick of fighting back and forth when all parties have enough
resources to manage their own policies and not interfere with each other!!!
They certify it and make it legal
They provide tax breaks
They provide spousal protections for survivorship and medical care
They supervise the dissolution of marriage
What do you want them to stop doing?
Dear rightwinger
I'm saying if people per state do not agree on terms of marriage,
because of conflicting beliefs, then either revise the laws
such as neutral terms of civil unions if civil marriage isn't neutral enough
and/or even separating terms of benefits by party so people can
choose what they believe in, without imposing on equal choice beliefs and rights of others.
Either agree on a state policy so nobody is arguing about discrimination
or violation of beliefs, ie mediating and resolving all conflicts so laws are neutral,
and/or separate policies for funding and managing benefits if people cannot agree
due to their beliefs.
How do you resolve married gay people moving between the states?
They are married or they are not
Dear rightwinger
States retain the right to manage their own civil unions and definitions.
if they recognize gay marriage as marriage that's up to each state.
If they only recognize civil unions, then that's what it's called in that state.
Some states don't require car insurance, if the driver has "ability to pay" and can prove it.
So in that state, the same driver with the same car is under different rules.
States like Nevada have legalized prostitution, that only applies in that state.
For national policies on health care and other social benefits,
I recommend to my fellow progressive Democrats and Greens
to organize by party. So people can have collective representation
and management of resources to fund policies that correspond
and represent beliefs in marriage, health care, prison alternatives,
educational priorities, etc.
if not everyone agrees on social policies through federal govt.
AND by the Platform of the Veterans Party of America
"ALL social legislation is Unconstitutional"
then why not manage it by party and have taxpayers
pay directly into the programs of choice?
I know tons of progressives who believe in paying
for education and health care instead of funding
war and the death penalty.
Why not give taxpayers that choice?
If it's organized by party then the responsibility
for all the terms and agreements is delegated
to one national group to represent its members,
similar to states being responsible for representing its citizens.
Just proportionally delegate federal budgets to allot
money to states, and states divide it by party by
proportion of taxpayers and taxmoney coming in.
so if GOP do not want to pay to federal govt
except for military, they don't get federal funds for health care
except for VA/vets if that's all they approve.
If Dems want singlepayer health care and no death penalty,
then that's where their tax money goes or doesn't go.
So each pays for their share and their members
work out their terms and conditions, from prolife
to gay marriage, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
If states can agree, then it's done by state.
This is if the population of states CAN'T agree,
why not create two separate tracks and let
taxpayers choose just like we do when we
donate to parties or vote for platforms and reps.
With each state deciding same sex marriage is allowed or not, how do you handle gay couples traveling between states?
Try to answer in less than 50 words
I answered that already rightwinger
each state has its own laws whether calling it marriage,
civil marriage, civil unions.
And I also offered another alternative rather than depending on states.
If people managed social benefits by party, that can be independent of state.
What part of my answer did you not get
and I will explain it again.
I answered two different ways
1. one is if you go state by state which I answered would differ by state
2. the other is is you go by party (or religious affiliation) no matter what state you are in
that's the benefit of organizing and managing social benefits by party,
it can be national without going through state or federal govt
There are lots of nonprofits that organize member benefits
nationally or even internationally and this is all private choice.